windows event says the dropped disk has bad blockschkdsk says there are no problemschecked data on the drive, and it looked goodnot sure how to get the array going, seems like things are ok, but the verify tasks give errors

That would indeed be the safe thing to do. Another possibility could be that the controller port it is on is bad.So, if the replacement disk has the same issue on the same port, then you have a new lead. Otherwise, you will know that it was indeed the disk.

That would indeed be the safe thing to do. Another possibility could be that the controller port it is on is bad.So, if the replacement disk has the same issue on the same port, then you have a new lead. Otherwise, you will know that it was indeed the disk.

ok i replaced the disk, and a new array was created.i am currently running a verify sync, with the same configuration settings as before.noticed the speed of the throughput is now about 1/3 what it used to be. from 600 down to about 200 Mbpsthe verify sync is proceeding without errors, unlike previously.however, windows event is logging errors still, but not the "bad block" error as beforenow it is a bunch of LSI SAS2 controller errors event id 11and also a bunch of warnings for the replaced disk, event id 153, saying the IO operation at logical block address was retried.

I looked these up online. Most of the advice is to run chkdsk and smart tests. both show no problems.there was another traid user on one of the other forums with a similar error.

so things are working now, but i am concerned why the speed is slower and these errors didn't appear until i did a big windows update.

i think the latest windows update changed something that is causing these problems. there has already been news that the feb update affected smb, and there definitely was a big change made a few months ago regarding elevated permissions and such.I changed the cables around to see if it's my cable on that one disk. i don't think it is, because now i am getting errors with 4 other disks. so i think it's a windows problem somewhere.

odd...the original drive with the problem, i replaced.then the new drive had similar problems.so i switched the cable with a drive next to it.the drive with the problem cable now started to have a problem.so i figure the cable is the issue.so i changed the cable (breakout) entirely.now, the same drive as before the cable change has problems!how could that be? i get a bunch of event id 153 errors when i try to run a verify sync. but at least it's not aborting, and the speed is back to full speed. so hopefully it will finish with the verify sync, and i can figure out what the problem is afterwards.

i changed the cable, and the verify sync completed successfully. SO it must have been a bad cable. The test completed with the expected speed after using a new cable, so the speed problem is gone. I haven't gotten any windows errors since the verify completed. i believe there are no more issues for the time being.

so here's what i have learned, somewhat related to the issue here...i have now noticed that i usually run into issues with traid when i reach (and pass) the limit in the settings where it says to prevent writing or something when only a certain percentage of storage is left. That's when i get the access denied and such messages. however, depending on a bunch of stuff i think, errors may arise when copying/moving files either when the limit is reached or afterwards. obviously, traid is not supposed to keep writing after that.

at first, i wasn't paying attention and may have written data that got lost. upon rebooting, things go back to normal. not sure it's related, but i got the issue in this thread right at the point of reaching max. i need to remember to avoid doing file operations when i'm close to the limit.

If you are referring to the pool, you need to set a more appropriate reserve space value. Not all program can handle being paused while the pool move the partial data on a full disk to the next. It is not the pool failing, it is the client program throwing an error after a timeout from being paused.

If you are referring to the pool, you need to set a more appropriate reserve space value. Not all program can handle being paused while the pool move the partial data on a full disk to the next. It is not the pool failing, it is the client program throwing an error after a timeout from being paused.

yes, that is exactly what it is, thanks. so you're saying if the limit is higher, there is less of a chance that the clients will have issues?